ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, in I.A. No. 370 of 2016 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 dated 20.02.2017, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint said to be subsequent events occurred in the suit. 2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court in brief is that he filed suit for injunction simplicitor against the respondent/defendant wherein he also sought for ad-interim injunction not to interfere boundary line wherein the respondent said to be received notice in injunction petition and also filed counter and written statement and he filed his chief examination affidavit and in the meanwhile the respondent with the help of his servants highhandedly laid pillars and iron fencing by encroaching plaint schedule property in the boundary lane towards north and western side. He submits that to substantiate his contention, he also filed photographs and Campac Disk to prove highhanded act of the respondent. He prays to amend the plaint seeking relief of mandatory injunction to remove the fencing towards north west side boundary of plaint schedule property. 3. For which respondent filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that the affidavit of the petitioner not disclosing circumstances contemplated under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. He submits that pillars and fencing on the north and west boundary of the schedule land was laid by him even by the date of filing of the suit and the petitioner came up with this petition to cover up the lacunaes in its pleadings. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that the petitioner has not made a prayer to make consequently amendments as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. 5. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that the petitioner has not made a prayer to make consequently amendments as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff stating that trial Court committed a serious mistake in arriving at conclusion that in view of inconsistent prayer in the affidavit and consequential amendment is not sought as per Rule 28 petition is dismissed which observation is not tenable. He has stated that trial Court failed to exercise the Jurisdiction vested in it. He prays to allow the petition. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner intended to bring notice of the Court subsequent events by way of amendment of the plaint, which denied by the trial Court on hyper technical approach. He prayed to allow the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent mainly contended that by the date of filing of the suit pillars laid and fencing on the north and west boundary of the plaint schedule property was existing which suppressed by the petitioner and filed suit. He prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: “Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?” POINT: 10. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads as under: “17. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 11. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 11. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another in Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India), wherein it is held at Para-70, which reads as under: “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided: (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear-admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit. (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala-fide. (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala-fide. (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. [See: Vijay Gupta vs. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and Others, 2022 SCC Online Del. 1897].” 12. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. [See: Vijay Gupta vs. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and Others, 2022 SCC Online Del. 1897].” 12. In the present case, the petitioner filed suit against the respondent for injunction of simplicitor alleging that the respondent is trying to encroach upon his land and laying pillars and fencing in the plaint schedule property. Now the contention of the petitioner is that after receiving notice in interim injunction petition, the respondent also filed counter and written statement in the suit and he filed his chief examination affidavit but fact remains is that trial of the suit is not yet commenced. It is not in dispute that pillars and fencing is in existence north and west boundaries of the plaint schedule land but whether it was laid prior of filing of the suit or after filing of the suit can only be decided at the time of disposal of main suit after adducing evidence by both sides. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioner can be permitted to seek relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in the petition. It is no doubt true that there is some discrepancy with regard to prayer portion as mentioned in Para-4 of the affidavit of the petitioner with that of relief portion which he sought in the petition. On perusal of Para-3 of affidavit of the petitioner wherein he categorically stated that now he is seeking for relief of mandatory injunction and while considering the petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Court has to see proposed amendment which it is extracted in the petition but learned trial Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that consequently amendment is not sought. When the petitioner is seeking for mandatory injunction to remove the fencing towards north and west boundary of the plaint schedule property, the same is not denied by the respondent due to that the petitioner can be permitted to amend the plaint as prayed for to avoid multiplicity of litigation and arrive just conclusion in the suit. Therefore, orders passed by learned trial Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. are not tenable, which needs interference of the Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. Therefore, orders passed by learned trial Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. are not tenable, which needs interference of the Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A. No. 370 of 2016 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 is hereby allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to amend his plaint and thereafter the respondent also is at liberty to file additional written statement if any before trial Court. After that the learned trial Judge shall frame necessary issues and shall proceed with the trial and disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.